It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Heavy Perception of Homoerotic Double Speak - All I Wanted Was A Drink

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 09:35 PM
My kids watch this cartoon called Teen Titans Go! For the most part, I kinda like it. Has some good jokes for the adults in earshot. It's kinda obnoxious and loud (like kids shows are). What got my attention recently was an episode where the 3 main male characters are interrogating Cupid. One says "go ahead and shoot your arrows at us! It won't do anything!". So Cupid shoots and then all 3 (Beastboy, Robin and Cyborg) get heart eyes and develop crushes on each other. This to me felt like leading a child into a perceived sexual orientation. Gay characters don't bother me. (Another show has an interracial gay couple and their adopted son. Doesn't bother me at all, because I know those kids from homes with dynamics like that need to see themselves in their shows too.) But showing Cupid making boys fall for each other (after saying it wasn't happening) made me very uneasy.

posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 10:10 PM
You are correct. Very few seem to have considered this.
Long term goals include eradication of God, that pesky uptight prick of a creator,
and sometimes the horses do bolt a little early from the gate, ie., militant homo germ warrior Dan Savage's
"The Real O'Neals", featuring a 14 or 15 year old boy who shares the joy of flaunting his anus about at an early age and who is supposed to seem more intelligent and enlightened (and popular) than everyone else, which show, I should say, presentation, was pulled after two seasons, due to a prudish backlash or somesuch. Now you have to pay to monitor the overt attempts at speeding along the assimilation. They never present E.coli, C.diff, diapers warts or disease it is all fun fun fun. Follow me and you simply cannot go wrong. The child star makes talk show rounds, his rainbow socks hoisted high, promoting that in real life he is pretty much that 'lil guy you see on that program, if memory serves. He beams in the spotlight, perhaps knowing he is a part of something much much larger.

Yes, one fine day you will be given a doping regimen which will simply
convert you into whatever you want to be.
Reversible at any time, possibly like life itself.
It will all be about the way you perceive yourself.
And everybody had better like it.

Every now and again we get a glimpse of it, the shimmering flank
of that behemoth, saying the universe is not conscious in any way,
but if it is, it is consciousness destroying itself, making room for something new.

There was a thread a few years back which vanished as immediately as I groaned,
heralding that they have done it, created life, though it escapes me like a nightmare you'd swear
you'd not forget, but forgot at the earliest convenience, as soon as you tried to jot any of it down.

I was worried about the reactions more than the contents of the finding.
Here they come, and they can manipulate the TV screen with their energy,
and that was all my energy! It belongs to ME!
Or perhaps you recall that short lived commercial which featured a square pops rehashing to hip and bored daughter how they one day learned, and carted in water, as the basis of life, while wearing clothes which allowed them to lift chunks of earth at will etc? For the life of me I cannot recall what they were selling...but
right after that commercial train was stopped, science dropped the theory that asteroids carry water.

You see...whatever non conscious consciousness that gave us consciousness did is to think what they made was the ultimate design, but that's like still listening to tapes, and vinyl, and so analogue. They gots to fill our empty vessels with digital hardware, not because it's fine- it is not- it is like the vitiligous caricature of the black shoulder of Jon Hamm, a jagged edge always in proud commando, coming at you as a scrambled line, no matter how much your plasma cost you; but because it's controllable. It is creation, subject only, to man.

And the marks
have got to pay for it

a reply to: AMPTAH

# 830
edit on 22-7-2017 by TheWhiteKnight because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 10:24 PM
a reply to: AMPTAH

And if you truly believe this going on and don't like it...throw away your TV, computer, and radio and not give Hollywood any money. Speak with your pocket book.

If this is honestly happening and it bothers you, you also have the option to just ignore it. We, as humans, do have the amazing ability to not allow something to fester inside our waking thoughts.

posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 10:27 PM
a reply to: markosity1973

The problem I have with gay characters is that they're very seldom done well.

They're either overly flamboyant *jazzhands* GAY *jazzhands* or they would be well done except that someone has to bring up the fact that they are gay at least once in every episode lest the audience forget they're *jazzhands* GAY *jazzhands*.

The gay part of the character is seldom ever a simple fact of life like heterosexuality is for everyone else which, in order to really do the character right, that's all it should be. John goes home to Jane, and Steve goes home to Simon.

posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 11:26 PM
a reply to: MarkOfTheV

I think it's just you. It weighs heavily on your mind for some reason.

posted on Jul, 23 2017 @ 12:09 AM
a reply to: MarkOfTheV

As a parent of 3 teenagers, there is definitely an increase in talk centered more around homosexuality. It's pretty much become the norm. I'm lucky in that my kids are not afraid to talk to me, so I do hear much of what goes on in school and when kids are out and about. Teens are also declaring themselves bi-sexual at very young ages and acting on that in the dating scene.

Media has become so super saturated by sexual content and imagery that it truly has little to no impact on me at all. Most of the time, I get tired of it and switch the channel. Hate to say it, but sexual innuendo is not gonna make me buy your frozen pizza, nor your fast food burgers.

The MSM is definitely screwing our society over and it's affecting those who are very young and impressionable.

posted on Jul, 23 2017 @ 12:53 AM

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: markosity1973

The problem I have with gay characters is that they're very seldom done well.

They're either overly flamboyant *jazzhands* GAY *jazzhands* or they would be well done except that someone has to bring up the fact that they are gay at least once in every episode lest the audience forget they're *jazzhands* GAY *jazzhands*.

The gay part of the character is seldom ever a simple fact of life like heterosexuality is for everyone else which, in order to really do the character right, that's all it should be. John goes home to Jane, and Steve goes home to Simon.

I couldn't agree with you more. We are stereotyped into being flamboyant pansy handed sissy boys. As stereotypes goes there is an element of truth to it, but no more truth than stereotyping all Christians as bible bashing hatemongers.

Based on the above, I find said stereotypical image of gay people on TV as disappointing and actually negative. Many of us actually are the Mike lives a normal boring life, but goes home to a Steve instead of the usually expected Shelly kind of people. I actually get just as annoyed by gay characters only being effeminate men. I don't identify with that image personally and it upsets me that this is the image that straight men get in their brain of us. It paints us weak, filthy minded and to be quite honest, exactly the sort of person Fundamental Christians love to hate.

One of the very few shows that breaks this mould and portrays a gay man as a relatively normal 'good' guy is BBC's Torchwood
edit on 23-7-2017 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 23 2017 @ 03:16 AM

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: MarkOfTheV

I think it's clear that the media is really forcing a lot of this on us... it seems to affect EVERYONE.

Do you think it's just the media? Is it an agenda? Or is the media just perceiving the public, and then feeding them what they inherently crave?

Yes. There's an agenda. The media is "told what to say". So, it's not really the media as you know it. It's about who is controlling the media behind the scenes.

The faces of the people you see in the media, are just "the presenters."

Hollywood is "required" to put gay and lesbian scenes into every production coming out of the movie and tv industry today.

If they don't, they don't get funding for the production.

It's a long term agenda, I discusses this on ATS elsewhere.

Basically, we are rapidly moving towards "re-engineering" biological life, and need to "destroy" all the "preconceptions" people have about themselves, what it means to be human, what is life, remove the "bias" and "prejudice" that has built up through millennia of thinking like heterosexual mates on this planet. It is the real reason that gays are told they can't accept "civil unions" as good enough for partnerships, but it must be called "marriage", using the same term heterosexuals "destroy" the meaning of the word "marriage"..and attack the religious foundations of "life" on this planet...because we will be creating our own life soon!

Exactly how I see it too Amptah.
Why would the powers that be make such determined efforts to legitimize homosexual marriage, even lighting up the Whitehouse in rainbow colours for dramatic effect to declare their earnest intentions to right injustice?
Have the same powers that be cried publically over the injustice caused to people for possession of Cannabis? There are decidedly more Cannabis users than there are homosexuals. Yes, Cannabis is currently legalized here and there but for how long?

When most people look at the issue of gay marriage their first impression in considering the subject is "people should be free to have relationships with whomever they choose to!"
The issue of reproduction within those relationships is a blurry second consideration. Yet they do realize on some level that reproduction is not native to homosexual couples. So enters the issue of surrogacy. Oh yes, of course modern science must step in to lend a hand to sort out this impasse. Laws must be rearranged to allow male couples to contract a female surrogate to carry a baby to term for them and then sign over property rights after birth. Female couples can use a sperm bank to select semen and then avail the use of IVF technology to create their child.

Okay, but what happens when there is more than a couple? Say three. And if three is accepted then why not four or more?

Three gay men say they have gained legal recognition as the first "polyamorous family" in Colombia, where same-sex marriages were legalised last year. "We wanted to validate our household... and our rights, because we had no solid legal basis establishing us as a family," said one of the men, actor Victor Hugo Prada, in a video published by Colombian media on Monday. He said he and his two partners, sports instructor John Alejandro Rodriguez and journalist Manuel Jose Bermudez, signed legal papers with a solicitor in the city of Medellin, establishing them as a family unit with inheritance rights. "This establishes us as a family, a polyamorous family. It is the first time in Colombia that has been done." Lawyer and gay rights activist German Rincon Perfetti said there are many three-person unions in Colombia but this was the first one to be legally recognised. "It is a recognition that other types of family exist," he told AFP. A ruling by the constitutional court in April 2016 made Colombia the fourth South American country to definitively legalise same-sex marriage, after Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay. 13 JUNE 2017

A businesswoman, a female dentist and a female administrative manager have managed to turn the idea of a traditional Brazilian family on its head, after recently making their relationship official before a notary in Rio de Janeiro. “We are a family and our union is the product of our love for one another,” said the businesswoman in an interview with the O Globo daily “I am going to get pregnant and we are preparing for this, including looking at it in financial terms. This legalization [of the union] is a way to prevent the baby, and us, from being left unprotected by the law,” one of the three brides told the press. The union marked the second time that a trio has tied the knot under Brazil’s 2003 civil unions law, which has paved the way for legal recognition of same-sex partnerships. In 2012, two females – a cashier and an administrative assistant – decided to formalize their union with a male architect in São Paulo. The three women, who have lived together for the past three years, signed a document that recognizes them as a family, establishes a prenuptial agreement, and gives them rights to make medical decisions for one another should any of them get sick. According to the notary filing, they have agreed to allow the businesswoman to become pregnant through artificial insemination. The baby will take their three surnames. The brides also signed three wills that divide up their personal holdings in case of death.

When three or more adults are accepted as being a family-producing unit then it is hop, skip and a jump to corporate surrogacy as is described so well in 'A Brave New World' by Aldous Huxley

*usually no more than three are required to legally incorporate. As part of creating your corporation, you are required to fill out and file what are known as Articles of Incorporation.

It's not about the sexual relations - it's all about the future of sexual reproduction.

As Amptah says: " It's a long term agenda."

posted on Jul, 23 2017 @ 03:46 AM
a reply to: MarkOfTheV

IMO, that what you are hearing is what the powers that be want discussed in the public domain - matters of no consequence.

While the masses are looking the other way, the people of consequence, continue to re-mould the world to their own design.

posted on Jul, 23 2017 @ 03:49 AM
a reply to: MarkOfTheV

It sounds totally normal and like you've only just noticed it going on. Double entendres and (sexual) innuendoes have been around for centuries. Shakespeare used dozens of euphemisms for genitals and innuendoes to mean sex, orgasms and feeling horny. French and German culture has always enjoyed this type of humour and old-fashioned British humour relied on a good dick joke.

In this context, I don't see it as a 'gay agenda' thing rather than it being something ageless. Might have been amplified by modern media...

Where I do agree is it isn't funny! I had a particular circle of mates who used this all the time and it was fake. Everything was turned into an innuendo followed by belly laughs. I'd be shaking my head at the fakery and choosing words carefully. It was a phase and they've mostly grown out of it. Sadly, a couple of colleagues find it 'hilarious' so there's no escape for me lol.

posted on Jul, 23 2017 @ 04:10 AM
OP's been oblivious, living under a rock. He/she missed all the "touching tips" (fingertips, we're girls) jokes my friends and I did in the '90s. And all the corny food jokes relating to the genitals, be it at home or out to eat. A side dish with peas still in the pod, man, think about that one. Just don't go fondling in the restaurant
And green beans with the right shape can be extremely amusing, little people sex beads!

Seriously bro, you're way behind the times. This is not a new phenomena, making sex puns has been around for a long damn time. Hell, the UK boasts one of the oldest surviving sex jokes I know of, it's something like 1,000 years old. (Q: What hangs at a man's thigh and wants to poke a hole that's often poked before? A: A key.) They beat you by a millennium.

posted on Jul, 23 2017 @ 04:18 AM
a reply to: Nyiah

posted on Jul, 23 2017 @ 05:51 AM
weighing in as One Of The Gays to say
yeah, sorry OP, but it really sounds like a You thing more than a Societal one.
i still see the same amount of that sort of carry-on as there always has been [ie, heaps of it]
i wouldn't go so far as to suggest you're repressing anything yourself
but there's a lot of keywords in your posts - talking about dark perversity and suspicions - i wonder if something you've read recently, perhaps on our own oh-so-enlightened ATS, has got you paying more attention to these sorts of things.

posted on Jul, 23 2017 @ 07:44 AM
a reply to: markosity1973

There was a good one on Warehouse 13 on Sy-Fy. He was a normal guy ... but they spoiled it by constantly writing dialogue so that one of the other characters would have to awkwardly say something like "... oh, right, you're gay." or something similar every episode. It was like he was so normal they had to find excuses to remind the audience and/or please any SJW police who might be watching.

posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 11:31 AM

originally posted by: GENERAL EYES
a reply to: MarkOfTheV

Star and Flag for "Coffee Talk".

I've definitely noticed an uptick in Double Entendre, though not so much in my day to day real world interactions, but definitely on the internet, and subsequently in my own mental conversations internally.

In the first instance (visually) it ranges from friendly banter insults and brotherly camaraderie to more blatantly competitive innuendo emphasizing or highlighting male fertility prowess - both instances decidedly male pastimes - but now more "out in the open" in mixed levels of polite company.

As a woman, it's someone unusual to look at or reference something innocuous and immediately have the "little voice" inside my mind make it a blunt sexual context. I find it slightly annoying, and immediately push the though out of my head because sadly, like most of the more recent resurgence of sexual or crass humor, it's not even remarkably funny in any context when too frequent, overdone or incessantly repetitious. It's a stupid repetition of junior high school humor, and these days I'm just too old for that.

There are also are so many fnords in advertising and design that hearken to the male genitalia anyway.

Don't get me started on Fire Hydrants or Domed Capitol Buildings.


I accidentally just made a double entendre right there!


Oh wait....I must just have a really filthy split-mind.

Sorry about that....I was once naive and more fun at parties.

But hey, if you think our culture is really making a big deal about human sexuality, I hear there are some Frescos and Bas Relief carvings in Ancient Temples out that would put the majority of our internet meanderings to shame.

Oh Humanity, don't ever change.

Wait you were more fun at parties when you were naive? Interesting.

I do think sexuality of all different forms is very much more in our culture.

Funny there have been dick jokes as long (don't go there) as long as there have been dicks and jokes...nothing new under the sun.

posted on Jul, 24 2017 @ 11:40 AM

originally posted by: Nyiah
OP's been oblivious, living under a rock. He/she missed all the "touching tips" (fingertips, we're girls) jokes my friends and I did in the '90s. And all the corny food jokes relating to the genitals, be it at home or out to eat. A side dish with peas still in the pod, man, think about that one. Just don't go fondling in the restaurant
And green beans with the right shape can be extremely amusing, little people sex beads!

I think my entire young adult life was spent making or listening to double entendres about sex, reproductive organs or sexuality.

It made me the well rounded man I am today, able to offend all groups equally.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in